Dinosaurs Survived When CO2 Was Extremely High. Why Can’t Humans?

a reply to: Waterglass

Dinosaurs didn't live in massive cities by the rising sea, or rely on growing crops. And they didn't object to mass migration from Central America, Africa and the Middle East into North America and Europe.

Yes we can (and will have to) survive in a world with much higher CO2 levels. But not living in the same places, with the same lifestyles, as we have today.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

Do you get the feeling that mother earth is overdue for a purge regardless of who, what or where?

a reply to: ArMaP

There's many of them on both sides

originally posted by: Waterglass
a reply to: AndyMayhew

Do you get the feeling that mother earth is overdue for a purge regardless of who, what or where?

In terms of extinction events, I think we're doing a very good job for her. And we'll probably find a way of getting rid of those annoying bipedal apes with pointy sticks before long, too!

a reply to: Waterglass

We can live with it. The problem is that certain people are vested in promoting the Global Warming scam for power and wealth.

originally posted by: JIMC5499
a reply to: Waterglass

We can live with it. The problem is that certain people are vested in promoting the Global Warming scam for power and wealth.

Some very rich and powerful people are vested in denying the reality of global warming for even more power and wealth

And yes, we can - and will - live with it. Just not in the way we've become accustomed. Ironic that those who deny our impact on the climate are usually the same ones who don't want immigrants coming in and "taking over our country". Which is a bit like pissing in your bed and then complaining the bed is wet.

a reply to: AndyMayhew

It's kind of hard to deny something that doesn't exist.

When I was in Grade School, the consensus was that we would be in another Ice Age by now.

originally posted by: Waterglass


“The problem today is not higher global temperature or carbon dioxide levels alone. The problem is the rate of change,” explained Olsen. “Throughout most of the Earth’s history, carbon dioxide levels have generally changed very slowly. That gave organisms and their ecosystems sufficient time to adapt to climate change through both evolution and migration.

The little ice age happened extremely quickly since it was due to volcanos and other factors, we also have this about the big ice age.

It took just six months for a warm and sunny Europe to be engulfed in ice, according to new research. Previous studies have suggested the arrival of the last Ice Age nearly 13,000 years ago took about a decade - but now scientists believe the process was up to 20 times as fast.

I don't think events are as slow as some suggest. So let's look at CO2, it has been around 200ppm to 300ppm in the last million years, but 70 million years ago it was as high as 4000 ppm, we also know at 150 ppm plants start to die off. The last time CO2 was 400ppm+ the seas were 30 feet higher, so that is most likely what we will see in seas going up, but it takes just one big volcano to correct much of this like back with the little ice age there were 3 volcanos that erupted over a short period of time and that event dropped world temps for 600 years. Going back to the 1700s it was brutally cold.

We also have the " 'Great Oxidation Event" where over a rather short period of time the earth went from little to a lot of O2 and O2 has most likely been far worst to the planet than CO2.

Change is here is about the best thing to say with all this, but the rich still buy their beach houses while screaming about global warming, so in the end what is actually real here?

originally posted by: pthena

The real question is: Do humans intend to continue to terraform planet Earth through the burning of hydrocarbons into a pre-human environment?

Well we have this...

Human CO2 is a tiny % of CO2 emissions

“The oceans contain 37,400 billion tons (GT) of suspended carbon, land biomass has 2000-3000 GT. The atpmosphere contains 720 billion tons of CO2 and humans contribute only 6 GT additional load on this balance. The oceans, land and atpmosphere exchange CO2 continuously so the additional load by humans is incredibly small. A small shift in the balance between oceans and air would cause a CO2 much more severe rise than anything we could produce.

So the question is how long will humans produce 6 GT and what effect does that have overall? We also need to look at the amount of almost 8 billion humans and all the animals we eat produce per year too that is about equal to what we make with our cars and energy of 6 (GT) too.

So what do we do...let technology solve it, reduce the human population to like 2 billion, and change up what we eat from 73 billion farm animals per year that we all eat.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
The little ice age happened extremely quickly since it was due to volcanos and other factors, we also have this about the big ice age.

Volcanoes tend to get weaker and some get extinct, that's why the number of large eruptions is smaller than it was.
That reduces the probability of large eruptions affecting that much the whole Earth's climate, but the probability still exists.

originally posted by: Xtrozero
So what do we do...let technology solve it, reduce the human population to like 2 billion, and change up what we eat from 73 billion farm animals per year that we all eat.

Don't forget that not all of the Earth's population has access to any of those 73 billion (I suppose American billions) farm animals, many would love to have access to some meat from time to time.

a reply to: Waterglass

What these nutcase leftists don't tell the people they've scared into submission, is that human bodies would adjust to the temps even if we were in the Jurassic Era when highs were reaching 130°F on average Summer days. They act like an apocalypse is upon us when temps reach 90° in New York. This is how they keep imbeciles scared.

originally posted by: 1947boomer

originally posted by: TheMindOfMax
If mankind has been kicking up dust for millions and billions and plebillions of years then mankind HAS survived not only high co2 levels but every other natural catastrophe that's happened on Earf.

"Science"..... what a freaking joke of a religion.

The oldest recorded fossils of Homo Sapiens date back to about half a million years, not millions, billions, and plebillions. For most of that time, there were less than about a million humans on the planet, living with Stone Age technology. For reference, there were about 30 million American buffalo on the North American continent before the Europeans arrived. We've only been using bronze and steel for the last few thousand years. All of the "kicking up" of dust has occurred in the last 150 years or so after the invention of the steam engine and the use of fossil fuels.

I guess math is not your strong suit.

That's debatable. How accurate are the methods to knowing how old something is? And Unless those fossils have a date etched into their bones, there's no way to accurately date them, whether by carbon or any other means. It's all just a theory based on unproven formulas, nobody knows how old or how young the bones they're dating are.

originally posted by: AndyMayhew
a reply to: Waterglass

Dinosaurs didn't live in massive cities by the rising sea, or rely on growing crops. And they didn't object to mass migration from Central America, Africa and the Middle East into North America and Europe.

That's right, and still went extinct. If the Earth is going to repeat that pattern, there's nothing a democrat nor a tax dollar can do to stop it. Ironic that all the biggest climate criers live on the coasts though.

a reply to: Waterglass

Have you heard of wet bulb temperature?(similar to dew point)

Wet bulb temperatures above 86° F(30° C) are considered potentially fatal for humans and we can not survive for more than a few hours at best as sweating becomes ineffective. Wet bulb temperatures above 95°(35°C) is fatal within an hours, and often less than 15 minutes.

As global temperatures, dew points and wet bulb temperatures continue to heat up as a result of the extra warming from excess CO2, more areas will see extreme potentially fatal heat.

Also this extra energy gives more energy for severe storms, hurricanes and even blizzards.

The ice caps melting and rising sea level is another issue resulting from the excess CO2 heating this planet.

Will excess CO2 lead to the entire planet becoming inhospitable? No, certainly not in our lifetimes.

However there is a chance of a "run away effect" where rapid ice cap melting causes significant sea level rise in a short time and perhaps a rapid CO2 spike causing more warming. As CO2 levels go up, atmospheric Oxygen levels go down. That is absolute.worst case scenario and will.not happen in the next 50 years+

a reply to: LSU2018

When you use slurs to describe people you disagree with it, it tells me you are not here to have a discussion, you are here to "win" the debate regardless of facts.

As for humans adjusting to 130° temperatures, that is not happening. Please read what I wrote on wet bulb temperatures. Wet bulb temperatures above 95° will kill any human within an hour, even in the shade.

Temperatures that extreme would render a large part of the globe inhospitable, also unable to grow crops, and even hurt the oceans fish stock.

If we can avoid this by culling our CO2 output then we should cull our CO2 output.

a reply to: Waterglass

If we just pay more in taxes, don't have air conditioning, and eat bugs, then climate change will stop.

while dinosaurs survived as you say, water levels were 500ft higher because the high carbon levels, and rising water levels is why many are so worried about climate change, even if we survive our civilization might collapse and it'll take so long for carbon levels to back to normal that water will keep rising until all land is submerged before going back down.

and even if water didn't rise, eventually warming would get so hot the atmosphere will literally ignite if carbon levels keep going up.

originally posted by: ArMaP

Volcanoes tend to get weaker and some get extinct, that's why the number of large eruptions is smaller than it was.
That reduces the probability of large eruptions affecting that much the whole Earth's climate, but the probability still exists.

I'm not sure a few 1000 years means much in Earth years. Mount Pinatubo, 1991 was a big one that changed in the weather for like 40 years so far. A lot of the rain we are getting around the world is due to 1 or 2 ocean volcanos one was one of the largest in recorded history. Hunga Tonga-Hunga Ha'apai, 2022. Krakatoa, 1883, Santa María, Novarupta, and Mount Tambora, 1815, were all massive, and if we get 3 of them within a short period of time with some ocean changes, etc and we would be right back in the freezing times of the 1700s.

originally posted by: ArMaP

Don't forget that not all of the Earth's population has access to any of those 73 billion (I suppose American billions) farm animals, many would love to have access to some meat from time to time.

Very true, but the amount of CO2 80 billion animals produce is rather big in what humans are doing, but is it really a big influence?

One of the best reasons that someone told me why it is important is that the earth is in balance and our little bit overall knocks it out of balance, so kind of like a full glass bubbled up at the top, and as you put more drops into it then you get water to spillover, so it doesn't take a huge amount to see a change.

My example of cutting human and animal populations remarks was a little bit snarky on my part so not something I'm actually suggesting we do.